cpedw
Well-known member
Argyll & Bute Council have published a Harbour Revision Order for Oban Bay. There's a discussion of some of the issues on Bluemoment.
Oban Harbour proposed municipal authority
- Thread starter cpedw
- Start date
boomerangben
Well-known member
This might be interesting. ABC took over the operation of Oban Connel airfield a number of years ago. I seem to remember that didn’t go quite as smoothly as planned IIRC. Let’s hope they manage to make Oban welcoming to all users.
dovekie
Active member
I have some concerns about this.
- The proposed area covered by the Councils submission is large. Oban Municipal Harbour | Argyll and Bute Council
- I understand that within this area the Council will acquire rights to charge in effect what they wish, to moorings on the East and West sides of Kerrera sound, and to the facilities at Kerrera marina.
- That seems to be at odds with the council's commercial interest in the (very good) transit marina.
- Even if the current Council are well intentioned, there is no guarantee that this would remain so
wully1
Well-known member
Since it took the cooncil the thick end of 30 years to get a marina in the biggest town in a premier cruising destination I’d doubt they will have anything in mind except the interests of the biggest commercial operator of the port..
ylop
Well-known member
Their q&a docs say - current speed limits work well, leisure users should notice little change to the operation of the bay, and leisure users will be exempt from conservancy fees… SO, what then is the perceived benefit? The implication is that there is a potential Colregs issue, which they think the HM could better control if he had the power. I’m sceptical. If there is really such a persistent colregs issue in the bay shouldn’t: 1. The relevant parties be pushing an education not regulation agenda (it seems unlikely that stuff is getting in the way of ferries because it thinks it has the right to, but rather because the operator simply doesn’t understand); 2. The parties investing a lot of effort in this, be better supporting the MCA to come and do their job as the enforcement authority for the relevant jurisdiction. After all if there’s an issue it presumably extends beyond even the new harbour limits; 3. If there is an issue, wouldn’t CMAL/Calmac risk assessments suggest something further was needed in the interim (such as some sort of escort boat). They could start by simply making their current vhf broadcasts clearer and the instruction / implication better. IIRC they simply announce a vessel (by name) is in/outbound with a time. No instruction what other vessels should do with that knowledge, no perspective for anyone who is not local so has no idea if Lord of the Isles (spoken fast in a fairly strong accent) is a huge RORO or the wee boat going to Kerrera!
I’m not necessarily opposed to a new HO etc, or even it being ABC, but it seems to me like it is “solving” a problem that either does not exist or which they do not understand.
I’m not necessarily opposed to a new HO etc, or even it being ABC, but it seems to me like it is “solving” a problem that either does not exist or which they do not understand.
RunAgroundHard
Well-known member
It is an opportunity that CMAL initially tried to exploit under a proposed revised HO, and which ABC stated that they were not interested in running. Then somewhere along the way, ABC woke up and smelt the coffee. The revised HO proposal submitted by ABC gives them more or less carte blanche to run the bay as they see fit, leaving CMAL, NLHB and the Crown Estate's business unaffected. At a stroke, the ability for ABC to raise revenue and improve their infrastructure without significant scrutiny from other agencies will be implemented, if the revised HO is accepted and implemented.
I think the main issue is that a trust port mandates stakeholder involvement in port development and running decisions, but that a Munciple Harbour does not require that. Indeed the revised HO has no stockholder involvement proposals.
I think adding a clause into the revised HO that included the formation of a stakeholder or community committee and a structure that allowed their views to carry weight beyond advisory, would go a long way to resolving fears. For example, current mooring owners and users, could be charged by ABC or even be ordered to remove the mooring under current proposals. There is a plan to extend the North pier (owned by ABC) which will double its length and dredge approaches to a minimum depth.
There is no increase is incidents as a result of the growth of harbour traffic and traffic transiting through the bay. The safety justification has never been demonstrated as a significant threat.
Whaup367
Active member
dunedin
Well-known member
A superb response by RYA Scotland - very precise, specific and detailed. Great work.
Porthandbuoy
Well-known member
And that’s why I won’t be cancelling my subscription to the RYA.
arc1
Member
It's why I'm now considering subscribing!
magicol
Member
Agreed. A really important response in the context of leisure sailors. And particularly important as the consequences of many of the points raised should have been picked up and dealt with by the Council’s own lawyers before publication.
